From: nickodoyle@aol.com (NickODoyle)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 13:20:17 EST
:::Slips into the Arena a half-hour before sunrise to catch up on the posts. Reading, he frowns and shakes his head. Sadly, and not excited to involve himself in a verbal war, he removes his silver pen from his pocket and begins to write...:::
Baroness Morgan,
With utmost respect and humility, I suspect your motives in voicing such fiery criticism. I do not know you, ma'am, and I have every reason to imagine that you are a thoroughly honorable, just, and moral woman, but (and maybe this is the New York City angst-ridden cynic in me speaking) I cannot help but find your eagerness to criticize the lady Drakewyn suspicious. Do you two not have a past of political disagreement? I think one of the primary
causes of the recent degeneration of these halls -- a cause that is too often, in my opinion, overlooked -- is the abandonment of objectivity. Person X's loyalty to the overlord should not be grounds for person Y, a renegade, to find fault with person X's non-political moral decisions; it would be fair and right should Y actually take issue with X's actual principles. I am afraid, in this situation, Baroness Morgan, that you are too easily riled up
against Drake. She did what she was asked to do by both participants and what has apparently been done many times before (during the "good old days" which so many refer to with wistful resentment). In fact, if I read the writings of the wraith correctly, a former overlord of these rings had this very thing done at his own request and perished in the ring. Can you really fault her as harshly as you do, baroness? Do you not think that your personal
issues are perhaps clouding your better judgement? Perhaps Drake should have forced Anon and Lupton into a separate room or outside. Perhaps she should have forbidden the death challenge. But what then? Anon would have continued to attempt murder and Lupton, eventually, would have been forced to attack back. It would have happened some other way and somewhere else without any semblance of honor or ceremony and with no witnesses. Then the inevitable
dispute would be whether Lupton or Anon (whoever survived) was a murderer. As a witness, a relative newcomer to these halls, and a fairly objective observer, I ask you again, baroness Morgan, to reconsider your ire for, it seems to me that Drake's actions were entirely in the interest of honor, justice, history, and the sport itself.
Your Servant,
Nicholas O'Doyle
:::Nervous that he may have offended any, the tall pale form retreats from the arena in a state of anxious agitation. Climbs out into the thinning night air and slips away to his haven there to take refuge from the stinging love of morning:::
Death of a Warlord
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rhy@aol.com (Rhy)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 14:14:35 EST
~I recall a few of those mentioned past events and would like to thank the gentle cleric for his reasonable words concerning a situation that seems to have as sae many another here...gone off ta the far right of the matter.
If making tempests within teacups was a professional sport, a good life could be made here by many what with sae many potential star atheletes living within throwing distance o' the arena.
~Rowan Hyperion y'Nestral
Date: 13 Nov 1998 14:14:35 EST
~I recall a few of those mentioned past events and would like to thank the gentle cleric for his reasonable words concerning a situation that seems to have as sae many another here...gone off ta the far right of the matter.
If making tempests within teacups was a professional sport, a good life could be made here by many what with sae many potential star atheletes living within throwing distance o' the arena.
~Rowan Hyperion y'Nestral
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: qnluthien@aol.com (QnLuthien)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 14:50:26 EST
Once in a blue moon, a Deathmatch is necessary. Will the dead 'remain' dead? We'll see, eh?
As long as we do not lose sight of the "Sport" as a sport when these instances occur, little harm done. Provided this unfortunate event does not start a new fad.
~Luth
Date: 13 Nov 1998 14:50:26 EST
Once in a blue moon, a Deathmatch is necessary. Will the dead 'remain' dead? We'll see, eh?
As long as we do not lose sight of the "Sport" as a sport when these instances occur, little harm done. Provided this unfortunate event does not start a new fad.
~Luth
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: skylercj@aol.com (Skyler CJ)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 14:51:24 EST
What's all this garbage about a ward anyway? Wards shmards. Who cares? If two people wanna to kill each other, why not do it on their own grounds, in a private hall or residence?
Skyler
Date: 13 Nov 1998 14:51:24 EST
What's all this garbage about a ward anyway? Wards shmards. Who cares? If two people wanna to kill each other, why not do it on their own grounds, in a private hall or residence?
Skyler
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:16:33 EST
Master Nicholas O'Doyle
Tis the desecration of the dueling house be me objection. The duel canna hae been an official match for ast I hae noted previously Lupton ist retired from the ranks. Tis I clearly recall an incident whereupon Lupton was "slain" though his "body" conveniently then vanished, preventing the taking of his head. Tis the second time in mere months that Lupton hast slain another in an "unofficial" duel, the second time he and his cohorts have desecrated
ring sanctuary. Mayhap I should have withheld mine magics when I didst remove the blade from Elle McBride De Fortenza's hand when she sought to impale Lupton, however, had I done so, mayhap Madame Elgarette's bairns would have been left fatherless. Tis me objection be unto those who would desecrate these ancient and hallowed walls.
Tis I find it somehow appropo that many of those who do support such sacrilege also support a Baroness who didst dishonorably and deceitfully present challenge to the former Baron Evan Rush Lynth. I am reminded of the occasion when an impostor of Billy Ray Karnafexx didst present himself in the dueling house. Billy didst seek him out and didst slay him, yet he dinna desecrate the dueling house, nor the sanctity of the wards of Gondar. Tis been
deaths in the rings, to be sure, yet t'was nae for the lowering of the wards, but for that the magic of the wards dinna protect all.
I am reminded of the eve that Feadur Feamegil didst battle unto the death the demon that sought to slay Fandral Kurgan. The wards' magics permitted the lifesblood of Utumnodris to stain the sands, the demon banished beyond the pale of this plane of existence. I am also reminded of a challenge long agon, that of Devion Silverblade unto Percival the Chaste, a challenge unto the death, for Percival had insulted the Honor of a Lady. M'Lord Kalamere,
he who at that time didst oversee such matters, didst make it known that such a challenge unto the death wouldst nae be permitted nor condoned.
Honor and truth flee these ancient hall, hypocrisy abounds. To e'en equate Lupton with Xenograg-kathu Darelir or Siera of Redwyn flies in the face of reason. Nicholas, tis morally offensive to me the taking of a life, though I am no stranger to slaying, nor a stranger to doing so by mine own hand. Yet, tis e'en more offensive to have this ancient and hallowed hall desecrated by those who care naught.
Respectfully,
Jona.
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:16:33 EST
Master Nicholas O'Doyle
Tis the desecration of the dueling house be me objection. The duel canna hae been an official match for ast I hae noted previously Lupton ist retired from the ranks. Tis I clearly recall an incident whereupon Lupton was "slain" though his "body" conveniently then vanished, preventing the taking of his head. Tis the second time in mere months that Lupton hast slain another in an "unofficial" duel, the second time he and his cohorts have desecrated
ring sanctuary. Mayhap I should have withheld mine magics when I didst remove the blade from Elle McBride De Fortenza's hand when she sought to impale Lupton, however, had I done so, mayhap Madame Elgarette's bairns would have been left fatherless. Tis me objection be unto those who would desecrate these ancient and hallowed walls.
Tis I find it somehow appropo that many of those who do support such sacrilege also support a Baroness who didst dishonorably and deceitfully present challenge to the former Baron Evan Rush Lynth. I am reminded of the occasion when an impostor of Billy Ray Karnafexx didst present himself in the dueling house. Billy didst seek him out and didst slay him, yet he dinna desecrate the dueling house, nor the sanctity of the wards of Gondar. Tis been
deaths in the rings, to be sure, yet t'was nae for the lowering of the wards, but for that the magic of the wards dinna protect all.
I am reminded of the eve that Feadur Feamegil didst battle unto the death the demon that sought to slay Fandral Kurgan. The wards' magics permitted the lifesblood of Utumnodris to stain the sands, the demon banished beyond the pale of this plane of existence. I am also reminded of a challenge long agon, that of Devion Silverblade unto Percival the Chaste, a challenge unto the death, for Percival had insulted the Honor of a Lady. M'Lord Kalamere,
he who at that time didst oversee such matters, didst make it known that such a challenge unto the death wouldst nae be permitted nor condoned.
Honor and truth flee these ancient hall, hypocrisy abounds. To e'en equate Lupton with Xenograg-kathu Darelir or Siera of Redwyn flies in the face of reason. Nicholas, tis morally offensive to me the taking of a life, though I am no stranger to slaying, nor a stranger to doing so by mine own hand. Yet, tis e'en more offensive to have this ancient and hallowed hall desecrated by those who care naught.
Respectfully,
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:18:37 EST
Lady Drakewyn
Dost now claim thine powers exceed those of the Guardian? Ast to knowing the History of these ancient halls, thou art as the blind leading the blind.
Jona.
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:18:37 EST
Lady Drakewyn
Dost now claim thine powers exceed those of the Guardian? Ast to knowing the History of these ancient halls, thou art as the blind leading the blind.
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:31:49 EST
>>Honor and truth flee these ancient hall, hypocrisy abounds.
Very true, Jonalyn, very true. And who is the worst offender, might I ask? Why, it is Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare. She condemns a Baroness as "deceitful". A Baroness who is probably one of the few good examples of a truly honourable duelist and honourable holder of title we have ahd in recent time. A Baroness whose conduct has always been above reproach, and who has always been a sportsman even when her personal inclinations might have led her down
a different path.
Jonalyn has destroyed marriages, reputations, and sewn disorder and strife with a malicious glee that is matched only by her hypocrtical self righteousness. I have foreborn from saying this for too long.
You, Jona, who seem so glad to give tags to other people, have earned one for yourself. You are hereby christened, formally, by my lawful power as Duke of Clermont, as "Backbiter." Let all remember that you never strike face to face, only from behind.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
"Mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore!"
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:31:49 EST
>>Honor and truth flee these ancient hall, hypocrisy abounds.
Very true, Jonalyn, very true. And who is the worst offender, might I ask? Why, it is Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare. She condemns a Baroness as "deceitful". A Baroness who is probably one of the few good examples of a truly honourable duelist and honourable holder of title we have ahd in recent time. A Baroness whose conduct has always been above reproach, and who has always been a sportsman even when her personal inclinations might have led her down
a different path.
Jonalyn has destroyed marriages, reputations, and sewn disorder and strife with a malicious glee that is matched only by her hypocrtical self righteousness. I have foreborn from saying this for too long.
You, Jona, who seem so glad to give tags to other people, have earned one for yourself. You are hereby christened, formally, by my lawful power as Duke of Clermont, as "Backbiter." Let all remember that you never strike face to face, only from behind.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
"Mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore!"
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: qxz137@aol.com (QXZ137)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:39:38 EST
<<Why are you getting onto Lupton for winning? Would you have done the same if Anon won?>>
Yes, actually, I would. Probably twofold.
--Commander Quizxs<FONT
COLOR="#0000E0"> Xysar Zzaasdp
Commoner, 7-6-1
Once Swordsman
I don't care what p<FONT
COLOR="#2A2A00">lanet I'm on! It i<FONT
COLOR="#000099">sn't mine!
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:39:38 EST
<<Why are you getting onto Lupton for winning? Would you have done the same if Anon won?>>
Yes, actually, I would. Probably twofold.
--Commander Quizxs<FONT
COLOR="#0000E0"> Xysar Zzaasdp
Commoner, 7-6-1
Once Swordsman
I don't care what p<FONT
COLOR="#2A2A00">lanet I'm on! It i<FONT
COLOR="#000099">sn't mine!
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:42:06 EST
Nick O'Doyle wrote, "Do you two not have a past of political disagreement?" and "I am afraid, in this situation, Baroness Morgan, that you are too easily riled up against Drake."
It is certainly a flawed reasoning tactic to have my alleged "emotion" toward a person brought up rather than responding to the issue I bring up. The precise logical fallacy is called circumstantial argumentum ad hominem*. As justification to invalidate my argument supporting my objection to what occurred, you chose to focus on a perception of our relationship for invalidating my argument, rather than dealing with the argument itself.
Whether or not Drakewyn and I are adversaries or best friends has no relevancy on my stance that the wards should not be lifted nor should death matches be condoned by on or off-duty staff members or any other member of this community. I guarantee you that had it been any other on or off-duty staff member to act this way, I would be just as outraged.
Your first question is certainly too complex for me to simply answer with a yes or a no. What do you mean by political disagreements? Frankly, I feel as if the question is loaded and without proper dissection of the complexities involved, I cannot answer fully and with good faith of being candid. Asking loaded questions would be another fallacious reasoning tactic for argumentative discussions. At least do me the courtesy of responding to my
argument rather than what you believe my motivations are behind my argument.
I am wondering since you and I have never had a discussion regarding my personal feelings toward anyone in this community how you would know how I really feel or just as importantly, why I feel the way I do. I am forced to the conclusion that you are basing your opinion on what someone else has said about or done in regards to me, and not what I have said or done in regards to what you bring up and I think therein lies a conflict. I take
great care, with some small measure of success, to temper my words with reason and logic and keep the emotion, or how I "feel," to a minimum.
I am a fiercely vocal person, that much everyone knows. I am fiercely vocal against people's actions I feel do not best serve the community and instead serve whatever agendas or personal whims that amuses them. I do not like it when people take liberties with magic power, political power, and authoritative power (as well as the power to stir people into a mob rules mentality), and I certainly vocalize my objection in as strong and sound a manner as
I believe is necessary. I am confident that many others feel the same way, and that sometimes, they perceive my own actions as not best serving the community or that as a Baron I might have abused my power. That is their prerogative. I expect nothing less from impassioned members of the community. They can level a charge and I will concede or deny to the best of my ability. That is the way of argumentative debate. The burden of proof or
persuasion lies upon those of us making the charge. To attack the person, rather than the argument, however, is not the proper way of argumentative debate.
You do not have to agree with my view, you do not have to agree with how I go about voicing my views. You would not be the first to object to my technique. I certainly respect your own right to an opinion and defenses of what you believe to be right and just even if I do not hold the same view. I do not think we have a matter of disagreement on that, however.
Drakewyn is not the only staff member I have criticized and I have certainly been more critically vocal toward others who I feel abused their position within this community. I cannot expect you to know that, but I would hope you would take that into consideration that even had I not just told you this, you would believe at the very least, I am consistent and in good faith have most likely taken up the cause against other, and possibly more harmful,
infractions.
In the future, if you would continue to make such statements regarding my "feelings," do me the courtesy and take the time to find out what my actual "feelings" are on the issue or the person. The only way you can do that is to ask me personally. Until then, I will be satisfied if you would direct your attention to my argument and not on irrelevant matters such as what you think I think about someone else on a personal level.
Sincerely,
Morgan du Cornwall
Baron, 5th Ring
Notes:
* Argumentum ad hominem: literally, "argument against the man" [rather than against the argument the man put forth]. Circumstantial argumentum ad hominem means an argument against the person based on circumstances that are not relevant to the actual argument itself.
((Author's Note: I am not sure if Nick O'Doyle's player did this or not, but just a reminder that we shouldn't be using OOC-derived information for IC purposes. The confusing thing for me is that I don't know who Nick's player is, and Morgan has never spoken at great length with Nick so I am trying to figure out how Nick could get any sort of first hand information on who Morgan likes or dislikes.))
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:42:06 EST
Nick O'Doyle wrote, "Do you two not have a past of political disagreement?" and "I am afraid, in this situation, Baroness Morgan, that you are too easily riled up against Drake."
It is certainly a flawed reasoning tactic to have my alleged "emotion" toward a person brought up rather than responding to the issue I bring up. The precise logical fallacy is called circumstantial argumentum ad hominem*. As justification to invalidate my argument supporting my objection to what occurred, you chose to focus on a perception of our relationship for invalidating my argument, rather than dealing with the argument itself.
Whether or not Drakewyn and I are adversaries or best friends has no relevancy on my stance that the wards should not be lifted nor should death matches be condoned by on or off-duty staff members or any other member of this community. I guarantee you that had it been any other on or off-duty staff member to act this way, I would be just as outraged.
Your first question is certainly too complex for me to simply answer with a yes or a no. What do you mean by political disagreements? Frankly, I feel as if the question is loaded and without proper dissection of the complexities involved, I cannot answer fully and with good faith of being candid. Asking loaded questions would be another fallacious reasoning tactic for argumentative discussions. At least do me the courtesy of responding to my
argument rather than what you believe my motivations are behind my argument.
I am wondering since you and I have never had a discussion regarding my personal feelings toward anyone in this community how you would know how I really feel or just as importantly, why I feel the way I do. I am forced to the conclusion that you are basing your opinion on what someone else has said about or done in regards to me, and not what I have said or done in regards to what you bring up and I think therein lies a conflict. I take
great care, with some small measure of success, to temper my words with reason and logic and keep the emotion, or how I "feel," to a minimum.
I am a fiercely vocal person, that much everyone knows. I am fiercely vocal against people's actions I feel do not best serve the community and instead serve whatever agendas or personal whims that amuses them. I do not like it when people take liberties with magic power, political power, and authoritative power (as well as the power to stir people into a mob rules mentality), and I certainly vocalize my objection in as strong and sound a manner as
I believe is necessary. I am confident that many others feel the same way, and that sometimes, they perceive my own actions as not best serving the community or that as a Baron I might have abused my power. That is their prerogative. I expect nothing less from impassioned members of the community. They can level a charge and I will concede or deny to the best of my ability. That is the way of argumentative debate. The burden of proof or
persuasion lies upon those of us making the charge. To attack the person, rather than the argument, however, is not the proper way of argumentative debate.
You do not have to agree with my view, you do not have to agree with how I go about voicing my views. You would not be the first to object to my technique. I certainly respect your own right to an opinion and defenses of what you believe to be right and just even if I do not hold the same view. I do not think we have a matter of disagreement on that, however.
Drakewyn is not the only staff member I have criticized and I have certainly been more critically vocal toward others who I feel abused their position within this community. I cannot expect you to know that, but I would hope you would take that into consideration that even had I not just told you this, you would believe at the very least, I am consistent and in good faith have most likely taken up the cause against other, and possibly more harmful,
infractions.
In the future, if you would continue to make such statements regarding my "feelings," do me the courtesy and take the time to find out what my actual "feelings" are on the issue or the person. The only way you can do that is to ask me personally. Until then, I will be satisfied if you would direct your attention to my argument and not on irrelevant matters such as what you think I think about someone else on a personal level.
Sincerely,
Morgan du Cornwall
Baron, 5th Ring
Notes:
* Argumentum ad hominem: literally, "argument against the man" [rather than against the argument the man put forth]. Circumstantial argumentum ad hominem means an argument against the person based on circumstances that are not relevant to the actual argument itself.
((Author's Note: I am not sure if Nick O'Doyle's player did this or not, but just a reminder that we shouldn't be using OOC-derived information for IC purposes. The confusing thing for me is that I don't know who Nick's player is, and Morgan has never spoken at great length with Nick so I am trying to figure out how Nick could get any sort of first hand information on who Morgan likes or dislikes.))
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: qxz137@aol.com (QXZ137)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:42:21 EST
<<I see no one besmirching Xenograg, Siera Redwin, or many other prominent names in our history for having the Ward dropped, and I wouldn't either>>
That's because we tend to discuss the CURRENT issues.
--Commander Quizxs<FONT
COLOR="#0000E0"> Xysar Zzaasdp
Commoner, 7-6-1
Once Swordsman
I don't care what p<FONT
COLOR="#2A2A00">lanet I'm on! It i<FONT
COLOR="#000099">sn't mine!
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:42:21 EST
<<I see no one besmirching Xenograg, Siera Redwin, or many other prominent names in our history for having the Ward dropped, and I wouldn't either>>
That's because we tend to discuss the CURRENT issues.
--Commander Quizxs<FONT
COLOR="#0000E0"> Xysar Zzaasdp
Commoner, 7-6-1
Once Swordsman
I don't care what p<FONT
COLOR="#2A2A00">lanet I'm on! It i<FONT
COLOR="#000099">sn't mine!
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: nickodoyle@aol.com (NickODoyle)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:44:38 EST
::sighs and writes::
Jonalyn, my friend,
Are you saying that, at times, the wards do not work on individuals? That's interesting...
In what way is Jaycynda traitorous or dishonorable? I don't understand much of the politics around here, I think. What is your actual criticism of Drakewyn and Lupton in the current instance? It seems to me that, rather than commenting on this particular case, you are using it as a reason to comment on past misdoings and transgressions. Am I wrong? What is this about Lupton and previous death challenges? He has cheated in the past? Does that actually
bear on Drake's actions in the present instance?
Confused but Respectful,
Nicholas O'Doyle
Date: 13 Nov 1998 15:44:38 EST
::sighs and writes::
Jonalyn, my friend,
Are you saying that, at times, the wards do not work on individuals? That's interesting...
In what way is Jaycynda traitorous or dishonorable? I don't understand much of the politics around here, I think. What is your actual criticism of Drakewyn and Lupton in the current instance? It seems to me that, rather than commenting on this particular case, you are using it as a reason to comment on past misdoings and transgressions. Am I wrong? What is this about Lupton and previous death challenges? He has cheated in the past? Does that actually
bear on Drake's actions in the present instance?
Confused but Respectful,
Nicholas O'Doyle
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: nickodoyle@aol.com (NickODoyle)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 16:01:19 EST
:::kind of taken aback...posts:::
Baroness Morgan,
I drew no inferences based on conversation with you, true. But, as you said, you are fierecely vocal. Does your writing not constitute valid grounds for judging your views? It seems to me that one's postings on matters such as this are perfectly suited for assessing one's views on issues such as this; that seems tautologically evident. Ma'am, I was not *trying* to address your argument. I was asking you to reconsider your position and to ascertain
whether you were letting your "objective" point of view get swayed by personal attachments and passions. I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way. Furthermore, were I to address your argument, as you have asked me to, I think I'd find it impossible; I cannot see any instances of support. You merely state your opinion and back it up with moral and political *beliefs*. In what way have you proposed a refutable point? Your excerpt from the rules
hardly seems to *prohibit* the lowering of the wards but, rather, seems to explain why they exist. If you could find a concrete example of the illegality of death challenges in the arena or of the lowering of the wards, I'd be more persuaded. As it is, I don't even think you've made an argument to attack. Once again, I'm sorry if I've offended you, ma'am. I do think that you took it a little too personally. You all need to calm down and
*discuss*...not argue.
Respectfully,
Nicholas O'Doyle
Date: 13 Nov 1998 16:01:19 EST
:::kind of taken aback...posts:::
Baroness Morgan,
I drew no inferences based on conversation with you, true. But, as you said, you are fierecely vocal. Does your writing not constitute valid grounds for judging your views? It seems to me that one's postings on matters such as this are perfectly suited for assessing one's views on issues such as this; that seems tautologically evident. Ma'am, I was not *trying* to address your argument. I was asking you to reconsider your position and to ascertain
whether you were letting your "objective" point of view get swayed by personal attachments and passions. I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way. Furthermore, were I to address your argument, as you have asked me to, I think I'd find it impossible; I cannot see any instances of support. You merely state your opinion and back it up with moral and political *beliefs*. In what way have you proposed a refutable point? Your excerpt from the rules
hardly seems to *prohibit* the lowering of the wards but, rather, seems to explain why they exist. If you could find a concrete example of the illegality of death challenges in the arena or of the lowering of the wards, I'd be more persuaded. As it is, I don't even think you've made an argument to attack. Once again, I'm sorry if I've offended you, ma'am. I do think that you took it a little too personally. You all need to calm down and
*discuss*...not argue.
Respectfully,
Nicholas O'Doyle
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: mrnothk0r@aol.com (Mrnoth K0r)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 16:22:52 EST
<<Why are you getting onto Lupton for winning? Would you have done the same if Anon won?>>
Yes, actually, I would. Probably twofold.>>
Okay, just wanted to make sure you were being impartial here.
::signs the note and tacks it on::
M®nøtH KÖR
o=={>>>>>> <<<<<<}==o
Mêr©ïnÅr¥ fôr hïrê
<<<<<<}==o o=={>>>>>>
Swordsman of DoS
"Every where I be
They try to judge me
They try to shake me
They try to buzz me
But they can't break me"
Date: 13 Nov 1998 16:22:52 EST
<<Why are you getting onto Lupton for winning? Would you have done the same if Anon won?>>
Yes, actually, I would. Probably twofold.>>
Okay, just wanted to make sure you were being impartial here.
::signs the note and tacks it on::
M®nøtH KÖR
o=={>>>>>> <<<<<<}==o
Mêr©ïnÅr¥ fôr hïrê
<<<<<<}==o o=={>>>>>>
Swordsman of DoS
"Every where I be
They try to judge me
They try to shake me
They try to buzz me
But they can't break me"
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 16:32:33 EST
Here is the argument:
"Allowing, sanctioning, or participating in Death Matches within the walls of the arena is hazardous to the community."
Since the argument is based on an abstract idea we cannot really apply some sort of mathematical or concrete factual basis on it. We are left with nothing more than a common concept of what is considered to be socially acceptable standards. In this instance, we can only support valid arguments as these with intangible, abstractions such as "belief," "ethics," "fairness," "justice," "opinion."
Next comes my support of the argument:
"In order to function as a community, we must live by no less than the most minimal of moral guidelines designed to govern the well-being of all our members. Death Matches promote a type of behavior that could lead to other unjustifiable and immoral actions; therefore, Death Matches should never be
allowed in the arena."
Arbitrarily lifting the ward to suit one's fancy can be potentially harmful. How can we restrain a person with self-proclaimed powerful magic? How can I ensure that whenever I step into the rings that efforts have been made to ensure some mage cannot just >poof< destroy the ward at the moment my opponent lunges and fatally wounds me?
Date: 13 Nov 1998 16:32:33 EST
Here is the argument:
"Allowing, sanctioning, or participating in Death Matches within the walls of the arena is hazardous to the community."
Since the argument is based on an abstract idea we cannot really apply some sort of mathematical or concrete factual basis on it. We are left with nothing more than a common concept of what is considered to be socially acceptable standards. In this instance, we can only support valid arguments as these with intangible, abstractions such as "belief," "ethics," "fairness," "justice," "opinion."
Next comes my support of the argument:
"In order to function as a community, we must live by no less than the most minimal of moral guidelines designed to govern the well-being of all our members. Death Matches promote a type of behavior that could lead to other unjustifiable and immoral actions; therefore, Death Matches should never be
allowed in the arena."
Arbitrarily lifting the ward to suit one's fancy can be potentially harmful. How can we restrain a person with self-proclaimed powerful magic? How can I ensure that whenever I step into the rings that efforts have been made to ensure some mage cannot just >poof< destroy the ward at the moment my opponent lunges and fatally wounds me?
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: shokeno@aol.com (Shokeno)
Date: 13 Nov 1998 16:38:42 EST
::a slight man approaches the board, fluidly pinning a pre-written note upon the cork::
Lady Jonalyn,
You scribed, some time ago,
"Dost now claim thine powers exceed those of the Guardian? Ast to knowing the History of these ancient halls, thou art as the blind leading the blind."
I would applaud thy ability to answer your presumptious questions in the very question you propose. She need not claim her powers exceed that of thy precious 'guardian'--it is blatant that they do, indeed, quell the mystic might that ye claim lies in the ward. Perhaps such a long run hast ebbed its magicks. T'was not my intention to prick thy smothering bubble, but perhaps the fresh air will do ye some good.
In regard to thy comment about blindness, my dear lady, t'would be even toothed of myself to state that ye, Jonalyn, are a pot calling the kettle black. In the microcosm of thy universe, Jonalyn, ye know all the history that has passed--but I believe I shall live in the here and now.
Conclusively,
Shoten
Date: 13 Nov 1998 16:38:42 EST
::a slight man approaches the board, fluidly pinning a pre-written note upon the cork::
Lady Jonalyn,
You scribed, some time ago,
"Dost now claim thine powers exceed those of the Guardian? Ast to knowing the History of these ancient halls, thou art as the blind leading the blind."
I would applaud thy ability to answer your presumptious questions in the very question you propose. She need not claim her powers exceed that of thy precious 'guardian'--it is blatant that they do, indeed, quell the mystic might that ye claim lies in the ward. Perhaps such a long run hast ebbed its magicks. T'was not my intention to prick thy smothering bubble, but perhaps the fresh air will do ye some good.
In regard to thy comment about blindness, my dear lady, t'would be even toothed of myself to state that ye, Jonalyn, are a pot calling the kettle black. In the microcosm of thy universe, Jonalyn, ye know all the history that has passed--but I believe I shall live in the here and now.
Conclusively,
Shoten